The People, Plaintiff and Respondent v. Christine Barrett, Defen — Werdegar, J., Concurring in Part and Dissenting…

Summary

Justice Werdegar concurred in the result but disagreed with the majority's equal protection analysis. She would hold that persons facing commitment under section 6500 are constitutionally entitled to the same statutory advisement of the jury-trial right provided to similarly situated persons facing mental-illness commitments, because the categorical distinction lacks a rational basis under the California Constitution. She nevertheless concluded that the failure to provide the advisement was harmless because it was not reasonably probable Barrett would have obtained a more favorable result. Justice Liu, concurring in part and dissenting in part, similarly would recognize the equal-protection violation while agreeing that the judgment should be affirmed on harmless-error grounds.